extropians: Re: q*****

way around this. This makes it an extremely difficult experiment to = broach scientifically. An individual could do certain things to his = brain and study the effects on qualia, and, I suppose, make his own =

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Clements = <Ken@InnovationOnDmnd.com>=
To:=20 extropians@extropy.com = <extropians@extropy.com>
= Date:=20 Friday, December 10, 1999 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: q*****

> My turn to quote from Chalmers on page 215 = of _The=20 Conscious Mind_:
> -- All this metaphysical grandeur is well and = good,=20 one might reply, but how
> -- does it cash out in practice? = In=20 particular, how can we discover the psycho-
> -- physical laws = that will=20 constitute a theory of consciousness? After all, there
> -- = is an=20 enormous problem for a theory of consciousness that does not confront =
>=20 -- a theory of physics: the lack of data. Because consciousness is = not=20 directly
> -- observable in experimental contexts, we cannot = simply run=20 experiments mea-
> -- suring the experiences that are associated = with=20 various physical processes,
> -- thereby confirming and = disconfirming=20 various psychophysical hypotheses.
> -- Indeed, it might = seem that=20 the untestability of any theory of consciousness
> -- that we = might put=20 forward would relegate such theories to the status of
> -- = pseudoscience.=20

> I did not argue *for* physicalism (another = failure of=20 reason is that an argument against something

> must, necessarily be an argument for something = else), I=20 am pointing out that any theory that has no

> data, and is untestable, shares the same status = as=20 superstition. Some superstitions turn out to be

> true. However, given all the non-testable = things=20 out there to believe in, and that I cannot find a way to

> break the symmetry, I choose to wait for data = to believe=20 in any.

> -Ken

But don't you experience it yourself, and isn't that = data?

The problem with this type of data is that you = cannot=20 experience other people's consciousness. You can rely on reports from = them, but=20 you have no idea if they are lying, or making it up after the fact. And = even=20 assuming they are always correct and always telling the truth, you have = no idea=20 if the qualia associated with an experience they report is the same as = the=20 qualia you are experiencing, or if there is ANY qualia associated with = their=20 experiences. I believe that ultimately there is no way around this. This = makes=20 it an extremely difficult experiment to broach scientifically. An = individual=20 could do certain things to his brain and study the effects on qualia, = and, I=20 suppose, make his own science which has validity to him, but if his = experiments=20 are not reporoducable in others, they may very well see it as = "superstition".=20 But, should the scientist who did the experiments and experienced the = effects=20 consider it superstition? Should anyone except those who do not directly = experience qualia (if any exist) consider their existence to be = hypothetical and=20 superstitious?

----------------------------------------------------------------= ----------
Zeb=20 Haradon
My personal website:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu= /~haradon
A=20 movie I'm directing:
http://www.elevatormovie.com

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BF43D3.B9D27080--